from the wow dept

The situation with Charles Carreon just keeps on progressing. The latest is that, according to a report from Courthouse News Service, Carreon has now not only sued Matthew Inman, but also IndieGoGo and the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. Read on for the details...

If you've been away from the internet for the past week, this story started as an online dispute between Matthew Inman, creator of the webcomic The Oatmeal, and a site called Funnyjunk, which lets users post content to the site. About a year ago, Inman wrote a blog post complaining about Funnyjunk's reposting of his webcomics. As we've noted a few times, Inman's statements about Funnyjunk were overly aggressive -- and did mention "stealing" of his own work. He seemed to ignore that it was users who uploaded the content. However, while we disagree with Inman's original characterization of Funnyjunk and how it operates, it certainly did not reach the level of "defamation." Also, we appreciate that Inman chose not to sue, but rather to make use of the court of public opinion. In response, Funnyjunk lashed out, incorrectly stated that The Oatmeal wanted to sue him (when Inman very clearly stated he had no intention to sue) and also asked a bunch of Funnyjunk users to contact Inman.

Everything seemed to die down, until about a week ago, when lawyer Charles Carreon, representing Funnyjunk, sent a letter to Inman, threatening to sue Inman for the initial blog post, claiming that it was defamation and a Lanham Act (trademark) violation for false advertising. Neither claim makes much sense, and Inman responded with both an excellent letter from (occasional Techdirt contributor) Venkat Balasubramani, and Inman's now famous annotated letter, leading to an IndieGoGo campaign to raise $20,000 (the amount Carreon/Funnyjunk demanded from Inman) for two charities: The National Wildlife Federation & the American Cancer Society.

Following that, Carreon told MSNBC he intended to shut down the fundraisers, and then bizarrely accused Inman of "instigating security attacks" against his website. Finally, on Friday he told Forbes that he wasn't backing down and that there had to be "something" in the California code that he could sue Inman over.

Apparently he's found something. As reported by both Ken at Popehat and Kevin at Lowering the Bar, Courthouse News has a notice saying that Carreon has filed a lawsuit in the federal district of Northern California. And, as mentioned above, he doesn't just sue Inman, but also IndieGoGo and the two charities. Yes, the two charities. I'll repeat that again: Charles Carreon appears to be suing two of the most well known charities because Matthew Inman asked people to donate to them. Ken's summary -- based on what limited info is available via Courthouse News:

3. CNS included the following description of the case, which is most likely drafted by CNS upon review of the complaint: "Trademark infringement and incitement to cyber-vandalism. Defendants Inman and IndieGogo are commercial fundraisers that failed to file disclosures or annual reports. Inman launched a Bear Love campaign, which purports to raise money for defendant charitable organizations, but was really designed to revile plaintiff and his client, Funnyjunk.com, and to initiate a campaign of "trolling" and cybervandalism against them, which has caused people to hack Inman's computer and falsely impersonate him. The campaign included obscenities, an obscene comics and a false accusation that FunnyJunk "stole a bunch of my comics and hosted them." Inman runs the comedy website The Oatmeal."

As Ken notes, the summary from CNS may be flawed. In fact, it clearly is, because it says "Inman's computer" was hacked, and I'm sure the complaint means Carreon's. So take it with a grain of salt until the actual filings appear on PACER or Carreon shares them with others. However, there would appear to be a bunch of problems with the filing if the other parts are accurate. Let's start with the big one: Carreon is filing for himself, representing himself. According to the report above, it does not appear that he is doing this representing Funnyjunk. That raises significant questions about what standing Carreon has alone, unless he's arguing that Carreon is Funnyjunk as well. Either way, Carreon seems to rely on things said about Funnyjunk, but is still filing on his own behalf. That's just weird.

Blogger Nick Nafpliotis called Carreon on Friday and posted an interview with him, which reveals a bit more behind Carreon's thinking on the legal front, and may explain why IndieGoGo and the charities are included in the lawsuit:

Carreon replied that under California law, you must be properly registered to conduct a fundraiser, something he is certain that Mathew Inman (operator of The Oatmeal) and IndieGoGo (the crowdfunding site being used The Oatmeal) are not.

"You might think of it as the 'Pseudo Santa' law," he explained. "Anybody can get a Santa suit. Then around Christmas time, you can probably make pretty good money wearing one outside of Macy's, ringing a bell, and saying you'll give the money to the Salvation Army. But you can't do that."

Carreon went on to say that he had been in contact with the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation and confirmed that Indiegogo had not executed the proper fundraiser paperwork. He explained that this missing documentation gives a sponsoring organization the power to shut down a campaign that may bring a charity itself into disrepute or injure its goodwill...or might be "using a charity as a human shield for a slander campaign inciting people to cyber vandalism," Carreon added.

Even given all of that, I'm not sure why IndieGoGo, NWF or ACS were included. Even if we assume that Carreon is correct that this is some sort of "illegal" fundraiser, it seems like IndieGoGo should be protected under Section 230 of the CDA. Amusingly, since Carreon continually insists that Funnyjunk is protected under the DMCA's safe harbors, you would think he would be up on the 230 safe harbors as well. Separately, again, even assuming that Carreon's analysis is correct, I'm not sure why that gives him standing to sue. Others (the charities? the government?) would seem like more reasonable entities who could bring a case. But Carreon?

IndieGoGo has told others that Carreon did, indeed, request it take down Inman's fundraising effort, and it turned him down, but (unlike the DMCA safe harbors), that's not that big of a deal. There's no "takedown" requirement to retain immunity in Section 230.

Separately, I can't see where there's a trademark claim. Carreon has indicated that he has trademarked his name, but unless there's something in the filing that shows something completely different than what's currently been made public, I can't see how there's any trademark issue at all. Inman's statements may have mocked Carreon, but that's not trademark infringement. You'd have to be using the name in commerce in a manner that caused a likelihood of confusion in that people would somehow believe that Carreon supported Inman's actions. That is difficult to believe no matter how you look at this.

We'll wait to see what's in the actual filing, but from what's already been said, this seems like a massive uphill battle, and one not made any better by the fact that he appears to be suing two famous charities in the process.

Two other points:

In that interview with Nafpliotis, Carreon makes some odd justifications for why he thinks it's okay to blame Inman for various attacks on his site (and a fake Twitter account). He basically says that because the comics that Inman draws are "dehumanizing," it's fair to assume that the attacks are because of that -- and (I'm not joking) compares it to Disney drawing cartoons that mocked Japanese people leading to Truman dropping the bomb on Japan:

"It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly with buck teeth and big glasses who could not pronounce their 'R's or their 'L's. But it was dehumanizing, and the purpose was to direct evil intentions against them, which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity. I don't think Truman would have ever done that if we hadn't so dehumanized the enemy."

"When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people. The emails that I've gotten...many of them wish me death or wish for the complete collapse of my law practice...and they are virtually all uninformed."

If people are sending Carreon nasty emails, that's a pretty stupid thing to do, but it's silly to blame Inman for it.

Carreon also hints that Inman might be responsible for someone setting up a fake Twitter account in his name which had some "offensive statements." His evidence that Inman was responsible? At the same time that the fake account tweeted some stuff, Inman posted a tweet mocking Carreon in somewhat offensive terms. That tweet did not link to or reference the fake account, but according to Carreon: "I don't know if that's coincidence. Why was he on twitter at the same time the impersonator was? I don't know."

We've suggested in the past that Carreon might want to learn a bit more about how the internet works. And here's one reason why: many people who use Twitter are pretty much always on Twitter. There's nothing surprising or odd about being on Twitter all the time. Inman's tweet indicates that he uses TweetDeck, one of (if not) the most popular Twitter applications, which you leave running all the time and thus has you "on Twitter" basically all the time.

As most people know, you will find perhaps no person around who is more vehement in saying that copyright infringement is not theft. I have argued that at length for years. Copyright infringement is not theft. It's not theft, it's not stealing. It's just not. That said, in no way do I think that someone who discovers that their work has been infringed and then refers to it as "theft" or "stealing" has "defamed" someone else. That's just crazy. It's an inaccurate portrayal, but one that is used colloquially all too frequently. To rise to the level of defamation would be something else entirely. Of course, it does not appear from the description that defamation is even a consideration here, since the lawsuit is from Carreon not Funnyjunk.

Lastly, Inman here has definitely won in the court of public opinion, and Carreon's legal efforts aren't doing him any favors in that battle -- by just not knowing when to stop digging (and almost creating a Godwin's law reference).

Reader Comments

I think part of the problem with people calling it theft is the cartels. They framed this discussion long ago, and picked terms that make no sense when you think about them. But they don't want people to think, they want people to feel a certain way about copyright infringment.

Carreon *shakes his head* seems to have lost what little is left of his mind. Suing charities isn't the smartest thing to do. While there might be some sort of merit to his claims about fundraising paperwork, I am willing to bet that lemonade stands setup by children to raise money for a cause often miss that requirement. The Oatmeal and IndieGoGo aren't trying to get a pile of money under false pretenses, and the media coverage will help ensure that the money makes it (not that anyone had any concerns about Inman not doing exactly what he promised.)

I await the arrival of his wife (or the troll playing her to a 'T' on here) to tell us how this is all wonderful and perfect and expand how this is how the secret aliens are working to destroy her and her husbands good works.

This case has hit new lows, and I'm pretty sure we will not see the bottom for a long time or until someone takes his bar card away again.

Re: Re:

Inman has done very little in this. A majority of the butthurt is self inflicted by an "internet" lawyer who can't grasp why the net is against him. He is blaming everything on Inman pretending Inman has mental control of others and trying to make him responsible for others actions.

We now know how far Carreon is willing to go to try an get his share of $20K, even at the expensive of his reputation.

Re: Re: Re:

Even if he wins, he loses.

If his "logic" concerning Inman holds up, then following that "logic" he has just claimed that Disney is directly responsible for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, So even if he actually won, it'd most likely give Disney legal standing to sue him, I'm sure they'd ask for more that $20K.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

One of his claims is that his email was not public...
It was on all of his cases which ONLY PACER users could see (I guess he hasn't heard of RECAP.), and he registered domains with it (A whois lookup isn't secret), and its totally Inman's fault that someone figured out his super secret email address....

He already lost, the question is how deep the self inflicted wounds will become.

Don't force me to marry Carreon

Personally I think it was harsh but lulzy, calling a site that hosts filesharers "thieves", get's you a defamation letter. (that is funny)
Expand that to the MPAA and RIAA etc... for ultimate lulz and butthurt on their propaganda campaign.

Re: Keep digging!

At the rate Carreon's going, when he does pop out in China, he'll have reached escape velocity. Maybe he's planning to go into outer space to sue the secret alien Illuminati that have been plotting against him and his wife all this time.

Carreon Digging

Although it should be a bit of a wake up call for IndieGoGo that they need to make sure that they can be legally used for such purposes. It is easy to forget in this day of connectivity that just because something is technically possible and easy doesn't mean that there isn't a law somewhere to scupper you.

Re:

There is also the question if they actually have any physical tie to CA making them subject to CA law.
The internet reaches everywhere, but trying to apply the laws of all 50 states to each and everything would crash the internet down hard. A uniform federal law would make much more sense, but they can't seem to make any law dealing with the internet without making it worthless filled with 'for the children' and 'but we have to spy' addendums (and a clause giving their most recent donors some cash back on the investment).

The other reason he might have picked CA is to prove Ken from Popehat, Randazza (meh) and any other lawyer who told him he was being dumb wrong. That he wants to face the ANTI-SLAPP lawsuit and "vindicate" himself by beating it. Sadly everyone but him can see this was a stupid move.

Re: Re: Re:

Relax, if they're based in California, odds are IndyGoGo's done the paperwork.

After all, Carreon claims that FunnyJunk is protected under the DMCA's safe harbors.
But, they're not, since they never registered an agent with the DMCA...which is required to use the DMCA safe harbor defense.
So he probably wrong about this, too.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

IndieGoGo shouldn't need to do that charity paperwork - they are only providing the tools. You don't sue the company that made the Santa suit for an imposter who uses it to make people think they are donating to the Salvation Army. Inman would be the only target for failure to do the paperwork - but Carreon doesn't have the standing, either the government would (if it is a criminal offense), or the charities (if it is civil law).

Also, the DMCA is for copyright claims only - not for defamation, which would probably fall under the CDA.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Also, the DMCA is for copyright claims only - not for defamation, which would probably fall under the CDA."

Idiots are complaining that Inman didn't use the DMCA to issue takedown notices of his work.
I'm pointing out that, since FunnyJunk isn't registered, any attempt to use the DMCA was worthless.
Of course, it also removes any "safe harbor" protection for FunnyJunk, so Inman can go after them on that basis...

Really, this is now pathetic... why would someone with little to no brain (guessing the latter) would stoop to this low to sue good charities all to protect a not-so-funny site? Really, this guy is making me sick knowing that he's going out of his way to sue these two charities.

... You know what? Maybe we got all of this wrong. Perhaps everything we know is wrong. Black is white, up is down and short is long. And everything we thought was so important doesn't matter... just forget the words and sing along. All we need to understand is everything we know is wrong!

(P.S: if I get a reply from this "Tara Carreon," just to let you know that I don't give a crap what you have to say. You can't justify that it's all right for your "husband" to sue these charities or any other pointless crap. Nothing you say will make me change my opinions about you or your "husband.")

Re: Re:

No this has nothing to do with funnyjunk at this point

True, but good money says that fact gets lost in the shuffle. This should serve as a reminder to companies that you need to be careful when you appoint people to represent you. Ultimately their insanity could damage your businesses reputation.

Re: Re: Re:

Which is why we need to say things correctly...

funnyjunk thought they had a case and hired a lawyer. One can question the wisdom of that action.
The lawyer decided to flex his muscle, and failed hard.
The target opted to mock rather than cave.
The net reacted as one might expect.
The lawyer doubled, triple, quadrupled, quintupled down.

All that is missing right now is funnyjunk doing damage control. They should make a donation and work on disavowing the actions undertaken in their name. If it isn't what they intended to happen, a demand for $20K, they need to own up they started it and it went out of control. If that was their goal, they can make great strides by admitting they got butthurt and now understand butthurt isn't legally actionable.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To win the PR war.

They need to raise - One Million Dollars for charity.
Then skillfully spam the story everywhere, generating thousands of back-links to make it top-story in news-readers.
Use rhetoric in the artificially generated top-story to demean and demonize Inman's actions while pointing out how good they are for raising the money for charity.
aka.... Beat Inman at his own game.

But who says funnyjunk want to win the PR war ?
They are not even trying, are they ?
If this drama brings them moar traffic then... they win anyway.

As for the law.....
I am not a lawyer and the law is some seriously fucked up, loophole laden shit, so who knows who will win.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"As for the law....."

Law?! I am the law!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Although, Judge Dredd's (or better said his society's, as determined by whatever that council is of Judges) form of law makes about as much sense to some degree as Carreon's (and his wife's) understanding of it. Actually, a bit more so. Since Judge Dredd as a made up character in a comic obviously has more room for creative flexibility still understands and interprets the laws as they are, not as he deems them to be to suit his needs (we'll let slide his ability to issue justice by whatever means he sees fit).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

F_nnyj__k cares about its reputation? Not as long as the ad revenue keeps coming in. I'm sure they're thanking everyone for all the SEO. They appreciate that everyone keeps mentioning the name of the company all over the web.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

... You know what? Maybe we got all of this wrong. Perhaps everything we know is wrong. Black is white, up is down and short is long. And everything we thought was so important doesn't matter... just forget the words and sing along. All we need to understand is everything we know is wrong!

I was just about to mail a letter to my evil twin, when I got a nasty papercut. And, well - to make a long story short -
it got infected, and I died. ):

Re: Re: The fuunyjunk users reaction

FunnyJunk

I wonder if FunnyJunk quietly gave up and doesn't want to be involved in this ridiculousness anymore, which is why Carreon is filing as himself, because he's not willing to just let this go until he "wins" even if every human being on the planet hates him.

Re: Re: FunnyJunk

No the complaint is all about how Inman is responsible for other parties actions resulting from the threat letter.
Hes totally on his own and its scary.

There are lawyers out there who behave this way, they make headlines and then try to sue the sites who cover the story. They make up imaginary laws and interpret laws to say what they want them to say... its scary but they exist.

Really?!?

This clown car lawyer deserves his own "Really?!" skit on Saturday Night Live (I.e. Seth Meyers and Amy P.). He'll probably sue me and SNL for being mentioned in this comment...

I would like to know what Law Skool this guy went to? I guess I could google it. If the facts in this article are correct, it would seem that this guy doesn't know he's actually committing the very things he's wrongfully accusing Inman of - not doing it behind closed doors, but documenting all of his douchebaggery online. Carreon is just the sort of ginormous balls of stupid the legal system needs more of. Tara, your husband doesn't understand the law. It is a shield, not a weapon. He is like a toddler running around with a loaded .45. He might have made good money being a douche, but it won't last. I feel sorry for anyone involved in this 'lawyer's' life. Hopefully it's just a small sphere of negativity... Unfortunately he's dragging Inman into it.

Re:

I'm sure it would probably start something like this "In your body are good, live healthy cells, they are yours. they belong to you. But also there are bad, cancerous cells in there stealing your good cells from you. Well that's whats happening here, I had some good cells and this Inman guy stole my good cells and is now trying to hide them in these charities. Just because they are called charities doesn't mean they should be able to hide my good cells. Right? Exactly only the cells are money"

Re: Re:

Re:

O M F F S M!

They posted my email in the twitter feed and it was totally a secret.... except... just read...

"As noted above, Doe1 or Inman proliferated Plaintiff’s email address via a fake tweet made
by “@Charles_Carreon.com.” Plaintiff had not posted the chas@charlescarreon.com email
address anywhere on the Internet except where required by law and Internet regulations. (The
email address appears on legal papers in PACER filings in cases where required by the rules of
this and other U.S. District Courts; however, these filings are viewable only by PACER users.
The email address was also used in the Whois registration database for various websites Plaintiff
has registered for his benefit, and as by the authorized registrant/agent of various legal clients.)
Inman or persons incited by Inman also proliferated the email address and Plaintiff’s home
address on social networking websites, again for the malicious purpose of enabling
cybervandalism."

It was no where except to people who have pacer, or can run a whois, or have a clue. I'm not seeing anything supporting the wacky claim that Inman gave out his home address, just seems to be thrown in assuming people could not locate public information on him without being handheld.

Re: Re:

Re:

[at 20] IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR DEFENDANTS TO SOLICIT
ON BEHALF OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS IN CALIFORNIA [format not edited]

Well if that's the case I say every single person should start soliciting that we all donate to either one (or both) of these charities an at the same time state the reason we are donating is because we think what Mr Carreon is trying to attempt is asshattery in the first degree and we support any charity or organisation (or individual like Mr Inman) that stands up to vindictive egotistical thuggery like what Carreon is trying to pull off.

Who's with me? I'm doing it now..

Oh what will the ittle baby who weeps about his mummy and bumhurtness do to me? I'd love a free trip to the USA for a chance to slap him a new one.

Sorry guys, but this dickhead needs a lesson in humility and how to act in a way that does not bring shame and denigration onto the legal community whether that be the USA or the world

Re: Re:

Damn, just read (quickly) the rest of that complaint.
this phrase immediately came to mind.

"Clutching at straws whilst drowning trying to row a barbed wire canoe up river whilst the sharks and millions of sharp rocks are coming up fast"

Oh and he has a trademark on his NAME .... HA HA HA HA HA.. so he's going after twitter users as does 2-100. Oh classic..

You Americans with your funny notions..

www(dot)charlescarreonsucks is quite ok then ;) and www(dot)charles_Carreon.com as also ok as long as it's not being used for the purpose of the original trademark or in commerce under category 45 [Legal services] ONLY. which means parody, political commentary or other legal purposes like T-shirts, hats, all stating "Charles Carreon (attorney) thinks cancer is fantastic and hates animals.

hmmm, so lets make t-shirts and send profits to charity.. oh the hubris!

"Commercial fundraiser for charitable purposes" means
any individual, corporation, unincorporated association, or other
legal entity who for compensation does any of the following:
(1) Solicits funds, assets, or property in this state for
charitable purposes.
(2) As a result of a solicitation of funds, assets, or property in
this state for charitable purposes, receives or controls the funds,
assets, or property solicited for charitable purposes.
(3) Employs, procures, or engages any compensated person to
solicit, receive, or control funds, assets, or property for
charitable purposes.

Re: Re:

COD definitely does exist anymore. (And I was just as surprised as you to find out.) A few weeks ago I went to the local bookstore to pick up a book, and they didn't have it in stock. So the girl at the counter explained they could order it and have me pick it up there, or they could send it to my home and it would actually cost a fair bit less. You can guess which option I chose.

A few days later, I come home to find a notice on my door from USPS that they'd tried to deliver it but I wasn't there to pay the shipping charges. (Shipping charges? What shipping charges?) I had to go out to the post office and pay the postage on the book. So now I now why it costs less that way; they were foisting the shipping cost off onto me as a COD instead of charging up-front for it, without ever telling me that was the case.

Missing defendant

If he's suing everyone under the sun for slandering him and generally making his life miserable he should add himself to the list. Then he could represent himself as plaintiff and defendant. When this is all done he could start a law firm with Roy L. Pearson, Jr.

Re: other places to find tech news

There's Engadget. The Verge. Arstechnica. Etc. It's actually quite easy to google "tech news" and find a ton of really great sites to read. I check at least half a dozen sites a day including this one.

Just fyi though, you don't have to essentially bitch about Mike, his writing style or the site. You could just as easily have asked if anyone knows any other good tech news sites. Heck, if you didn't have a name attached to your comment I'd just as easily assumed you were the same AC who is always threatening to leave, and who yet continues to haunt this site (much to our dismay).

Potential oops on the fundraising claim...

Complaint on Carreon's site quotes the fundraising statute:

Cal. Govt. Code § 12599(a) defines commercial fundraisers:
"Commercial fundraiser for charitable purposes" means any
individual, corporation, unincorporated association, or other legal entity who for compensation does any of the following:
(1) Solicits funds, assets, or property in this state for charitable
purposes.
(2) As a result of a solicitation of funds, assets, or property in this
state for charitable purposes, receives or controls the funds, assets,
or property solicited for charitable purposes.
(3) Employs, procures, or engages any compensated person to
solicit, receive, or control funds, assets, or property for charitable purposes.”

{Emphasis Added} on key words: "for compensation"

Haven't read the case law, but the statute's plain language seems to indicate that Inman's charity (for which he is apparently not taking a cut) would need to be registered only if it was "for compensation" i.e., commercial purpose. Meaning, like the Trademark claim, we have no commercial speech, or commercial use. I.e., no violation of the statute (again, on plain language - no telling what the case law has said, but plain language is supposed to mean "don't try to interpret this otherwise, Courts").

Carreon is right!

Carreon is absolutely right - "Matthew Inman" (obviously a pseudonym) is an evil genius bent on controlling the world, and he must be stopped at all cost.

Carreon's proof is absolute: the fake twitter account that purports to be Carreon can only have been created by "Inman", as "Inman" was on twitter when the fake account was used!

Now, seriously, take a look at all the other accounts that posted while "Inman" was online:

Kim Kardashian - obviously is a troll account created by "Inman"!

Snooki posted about her pregnancy! That means "Inman" must be the father!

In fact, there were millions of tweets happening while "Inman" was online - obviously "Inman" is responsible for all of them - it's a consipiracy of unheard of proportions!

Now all the courageous Mr. Carreon has to do is unmask this evil threat... and I think we all know who it will turn out to be: Brian Presley! He doesn't use Twitter, but was outed as a douchebag when he was hitting on that model who livetweeted the whole thing. He must have created the "Matthew Inman" character to distract from that story!

I'm sure this will all come out in court, and the world will be SHOCKED!

Re: Carreon is right!

I can't bring myself to mark this funny.
It truly is sad to see how far down the rabbit hole you have fallen Mr. Carreon.
You should lay down now and rest, the paramedics are on the way to help you. They are not aliens coming to replace your brain with tapioca.
Lie down and be quiet now...

Re:

Statement 1 - Agree.
Statement 2 - Disagree.
Statement 3 - I don't believe so. This entire incident shows how the law can have an affect on what we do online. A broad overreaching legal threat, was met with humor and a goal to help others. The legal "mind" then was unable to understand what they had done would be unpopular and tried unsuccessfully to put the genie back into the bottle.

Giving publicity to this public self flogging can help remind the Tech community that just because a lawyer says your wrong, does not always mean you are. There are good ways to respond to baseless threats, and can turn a stupid situation into something beneficial.

Re:

dont forget theoatmeal started this, by accusing funnyjunk of stealing everything on the internet to make money from it, funnyjunk is responding, just because you don't like how they respond doesn't make them the bad guy here

Re:

Whaaaaa?

Exactly how is it not legitimate to criticize how funnyjunk has responded? If you read the series of articles here on this topic, it is precisely the response (not the subject of theoatmeals original concern) that makes them the "bad guy".

By your logic, if I poke you in the ribs and you turn around and cut my arm off with a chainsaw, NO ONE can complain or label you the bad guy? Is that what you're saying?

Re:

They "forget" because of the drama.
(It's some "grade A" drama at that)

---spams this---
Poor Inman get's a $20,000 settlement letter which he could never afford to pay because he is just a poor innocent, independent cartoonist.
Look everyone, he is donating to charity...awwww
We should help this good guy.
Doesn't matter why he got the settlement letter.
---sent by proxy---

Poor Inman , the guy who....
sold a multi-million user dating site,
was in charge of an SEO company,
is a viral advertiser,
also a "link generating scam" mastermind.
Calls sharing "theft"

Re: how do you pronounce that?

Someone should do some kind of study on why all these out-of-touch people who overuse "cyber" as a prefix have suddenly popped up. Is it from a particular organization, or is it spreading like some weird meme among people who want to sound like they understand technology?

The good news

So... how is it not blatent harassment when you piss off a crowd of people, pick the most prolific one, and state you are going to figure out a way to sue him, then proceed to file suits against him for imagined actions?

Charles Carreon is doing Americans a favor by highlighting how ridiculous the legal system has become and how it can harm anyone, maybe he is able to wake up the public to the problem and make people realize that they need to start "sanitizing" the legal system to get rid of all those loop holes that allow people like Carreon to bully others in this manner.

Carreon's Perverse Intelligence

To me, it looks a little bit as if Carreon's move to sue all four; Inman, the two charities and Indiegogo, might be to everyone's advantage.
I think what we would all like to see, is that the money donated, does indeed go to the charities, and not into Inman's pocket: NOT that I'm saying I think Inman would do that; but to prevent (possibly) other people from doing this, and from Indiegogo, or other charities from being closed down, or affected by this type of campaign in future: which is important.
If Carreon fills a hole in the system, whether rightly or wrongly, he's bringing a case, which is legitimately his, and will be appropriately dealt with. So hopefully, (and I realise that I'm standing up for the bad guy here) his actions will prove beneficial in the long run.